Frequent and infrequent stimulus words were presented tachistoscopically to grade school children. Faster recognition of the frequent words was consistent with adult data. It was clearly demonstrated that infrequent stimulus words required more sensory information than frequent stimulus words before recognition could occur. The lack of a response bias in these young Ss was only suggestive, since there was some tendency not to give many presolution responses. Suggestions were offered as to methods of increasing the number of prercognition responses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GoldiamondI.HawkinsW. F.Vexierversuch: The log relationship between word frequency and recognition obtained in the absence of stimulus words. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 56, 457–463.
2.
HowesD. H.SolomonR. L.Visual duration threshold as a function of word probability. J. exp. Psychol., 1951, 41, 401–410.
3.
LindquistE.Design and analysis of experiments. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953.
4.
McGinniesE. M.ComerP. B.LaceyO. L.Visual recognition thresholds as a function of word length and word frequency. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 44, 65–69.
5.
NewbiggingP. L.The perceptual redintegration of frequent and infrequent words. Canad. J. Psychol., 1961, 15, 123–132.
6.
PaivioA.Learning of adjective-noun paired-associates as a function of adjective-noun word order and noun abstractness. Canad. J. Psychol., 1963, 17, 370–379.
7.
PaivioA.OlverM.Denotative generality, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning of nouns. Psychon. Sci., 1964, 1, 183–184.
8.
RinslandH. D.A basic vocabulary of elementary school children. New York: Macmillan, 1945.
9.
RosenzweigM. R.PostmanL.Frequency of usage and the perception of words. Science, 1958, 127, 263–266.
10.
SiegelS.Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
11.
SolomonR. L.PostmanL.Frequency of usage as a determinant of recognition thresholds for words. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43, 195–201.
